On adding ammonia & beneficial bacteria to a new pond

[MoonShadows]

Thanks for that quick lesson.

 

[sissy]

Well glad you did I made some of those rocks .Hope you are doing good .Not to misdirect the post .

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Plants are like the water...sooner you added them the sooner everything settles down. I don't know what issue there would be fertilizing them as long as just fertilizer is used. I add a lot of fertilizer to plants like Canna and most plants. Most marginal type plants don't do very well without added fertilizer.

Fertilizing plants before fish are added only increases the Nitrogen level in the water column placing an even greater demand on a yet to be cycled biofilter. This caveat applies mainly to new ponds that are undergoing "fishless" cycling. Fertilizing plants will only extend the cycling time required.

 

[MitchM]

In addition to what MitchM said there's at least one more interaction to note and that's algae. It doesn't really matter, but just for fun, algae will consume ammonia directly bypassing the nitrite/nitrogen deal. A pond doesn't need to be visibly green, there can be a lot of algae before visible. Cycling a water garden is almost never needed, the light fish load in these is handled fine. It's something done in high fish load systems. Bottom line is testing ammonia at the start tells you what's going on. It doesn't really matter in a water garden whether it's algae or bacteria consuming ammonia, but in virtually all water gardens algae is doing the heavy lifting.

Rain water normally is 0 KH so the water isn't buffered at all. That leads to PH being very unstable and readings being kind of meaningless. If you measure KH and add (if needed) to keep KH up you don't even have to test PH. Rain water coming down is generally very low, like in the low 5's in west US and under down to like 4.3 in the NE US. In thunderstorms it can get down to low 2's. This can have an effect in low/no buffered ponds. And of course the resulting PH from increasing KH can effect the ratio of toxic and non-toxic ammonia. Also, chemicals to dechlorinate water can result in meaningless ammonia test readings for most common test kits.

Bacteria in a bottle is very popular with stores and people. The better the company marketing the happier the people. It's a great placebo and helps many people lower their stress level. However, if you're part of the shrinking world of people interested in data you will find no hard evidence bacteria in a bottle has any effect other than add a bit of waste to the water. If you prefer a common sense approach you can add some ammonia to water, in a bucket or whatever, and be amazed how fast bacteria set up shop and consume it all. Ammonia converting bacteria is everywhere. As for exotic bacteria some companies elude to, well, back to placebo. For sure many people who pay $20-60 for a bottle of stuff do claim to "see" benefits. Most of these products seem to do no harm so if you feel the need, I'd say do ahead. It's just money.

If you have the time, for most water gardens, it's hard to beat filling your pond with water and just waiting a week or more to add fish. You get stable water pretty fast. But a testing ammonia and KH is good insurance.

Nice to see you back, Waterbug.

.

 

[MitchM]

LOL...I just decide not to use beneficial bacteria, and you post that link! Oh well, I have time to make up my mind...again!

The product that Meyer Jordan mentioned is one of the good ones that place an expiry date on their product.
I've never used bacteria in a bottle, I've never felt a need to rush the process.
I did find it very interesting to learn about all the different products out there.
Up to you.

 

[MoonShadows]

I was reading about it...I have time to decide.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Considering the cost of most of these beneficial bacteria products and the fact that the ones that might really somehow contain significant quantities of beneficial bacteria are bound to be quite expensive VS the fact that all the bacteria you need to start a good colony are already in your water, it seems like a complete waste of money to me.

Like bacteria, algae is also an essential part of ponds, and like bacteria it also coats almost everything in the pond and consumes ammonia, and yet nobody ever feels the need to inoculate their pond with bottled algae products, yet it manages to find it's way into every pond all on it's own. Why do you think that is?

 

[MitchM]

I expect that if you tried to inoculate a new pond with algae (after you added ammonia), you would have algae blooms, PH swings and delayed establishment of a proper nitrifying bacteria population.
I see algae as a safety valve for the aquatic environment, which consumes extra nutrients that are available because of an overloaded biofilter.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

I expect that if you tried to inoculate a new pond with algae (after you added ammonia), you would have algae blooms, PH swings and delayed establishment of a proper nitrifying bacteria population.
I see algae as a safety valve for the aquatic environment, which consumes extra nutrients that are available because of an overloaded biofilter.

The point was there is no need to inoculate the algae, it's there already (just like the bacteria). That's why algae blooms are so common in new ponds, even ones where no one has added ammonia or algae.
Algae and nitrifying bacteria both consume ammonia, but they do have a couple key differences, algae thrives in sunlight and won't grow at all in the absence of light, also algae requires very little oxygen. Nitifying bacteria on the other hand thrive in an oxygen rich environment, but grow just fine with zero sunlight. Really wana speed up the nitrification process? make sure you get lots of oxygenation in the water, especially in your bio-filter if you have one.I expect that would do more than adding redundant bacteria that is already present in the pond.

 

[MitchM]

Studies have shown that adding viable nitrifying bacteria will speed up completion of the nitrification cycle.
As hobbyists, I don't see the need, but as a curiosity there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. I would probably try some out just for the education aspect.
I can see where a business could find it beneficial to inoculate with viable bacteria. The quicker you get a pond up and running the sooner the job is completed.
At night, algae will consume oxygen.
I agree with ensuring as much oxygenation as possible is a good thing.

 

[MitchM]

I know of one retailer in California that boasts he can get a pond up and running in a few days with fish, but he's using salt to deal with the nitrite and really pushing the boundaries too far in my opinion.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Studies have shown that adding viable nitrifying bacteria will speed up completion of the nitrification cycle.
As hobbyists, I don't see the need, but as a curiosity there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. I would probably try some out just for the education aspect.
I can see where a business could find it beneficial to inoculate with viable bacteria. The quicker you get a pond up and running the sooner the job is completed.
At night, algae will consume oxygen.
I agree with ensuring as much oxygenation as possible is a good thing.

As I think Waterbug already mentioned, adding the stuff likely won't hurt anything, but as far as education and experimentation I think aquariums are best suited for that sort of experimentation. Using two equal sized, side by side aquariums with all things being the exactly the same, only one you add some bottled bacteria product and some ammonia and one you just add the ammonia, then you'd need to diligently measure ammonia, nitrite and nitrate levels for about a month or two to really see what's going on.
The problem with someone like MoonShadow setting up his one pond for the first time and adding some bottled gobblygook to it and low and behold after a few weeks the nitrifying bacteria colony starts to build and are doing their job would tell him nothing. He could imagine it was the gobblygook that got the bacteria colony established, but we all know it was gona get established anyway. There are just too many variables involved and no way for him to compare what would have happened if he didn't add any. One variable that has more to do with speeding up bacteria colonization than just about anything else is water temperature. Add as many bottles of expensive viable bacteria as you like, if the water is too cold they aren't gona do anything. If you really are in some sort of hurry getting a bacteria colony established and your water is less than say 50-60 F (10-15 C) you'd probably find the money is better spent on some sort of device for warming your water.

 

[MitchM]

I used to write off all bottled bacteria as a waste of money based on what I've seen available up here only. After having read a number of studies on the subject, I learned a lot along the way.
We have no need for speeding up the cycle, but I'll always encourage someone to learn more.
For me anyways, if I have a bottle of something in my hand, I'm more inclined to read up on it.
Don't get me started on warming up pond water. Lol

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

This may help to clear up (or further confuse) this topic.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ojv0BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=aquaculture,+bacterial+inoculants,+nitrification&source=bl&ots=M-wrZtW-sP&sig=FhmOigJmmSupStjbmiWiFJMoDNo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1detwoPSAhWFQCYKHWMYAowQ6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=aquaculture, bacterial inoculants, nitrification&f=false

Read the entire section on Biofilter Start-up.

 

[MoonShadows]

Thanks for that reference, Meyer.

 

[carolinaguy]

I researched the beneficial bacteria business years ago and found that there is only one that works. Can't remember the name. The company was out of San Antonio. The other stuff doesn't work because you can't ship live bacteria in a bottle, especially after it sits on a shelf for six months air tight. Biologically impossible. The Texas company ships their stuff overnight in a refrigerated container and costs about $35 a quart. They provide starter bacteria to the major aquariums, sea world, and zoos in 55 gallon drums. The best way to add starter bacteria is to go to a friend with a mature pond and extract some filter slime to put in your pond. The rest s hoodoo.

 

[carolinaguy]

As for adding ammonia, that is a classic method of starting a pond. Been used for years. You are basically adding food that your bacterial colony eats. Nitrosomas eat ammonia. Nitrobacter eats nitrite. Plants eat nitrates. Simple. Just monitor your ammonia level and keep it below 1.0. Don't let it stay at 1.0 for a long time because ammonia is an irritant to gill membranes and causes the fish to produce slime to protect the membrane. The gill membrane is actually two membranes side by side, and the slime will make them stick together and inhibit gas exchange by reducing the effective surface area. That's a stressor for fish. Long term ammonia erodes the gill arch creating permanent damage and scar tissue in the gill membrane. Fish become permanently damaged, like COPD in people, and in the first drop in oxygen saturation they die first. But short term you are just feeding the good bacteria and are making them proliferate. Just like buying a round of beers for the bar. Oohah!

 

[Magzire]

I found something interesting. I rebuild my filter with all new media. So basically starting fresh. Even with small meals each day the ammonia is reading near zero. I'm guessing the small layer of gravel on the bottom along with a airstone is acting like a good ground for beneficial bacteria.